Commonwealth v. Mattingly’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2009
5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Burks v. United States · Hudson v. Louisiana · Hon v. Commonwealth · Crawley v. Commonwealth · Hobbs v. Commonwealth
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Hon v. Commonwealth, [Ky., 670 S.W.2d 851 (1984) ], and Hudson v. State of Louisiana, [ 450 U.S. 40 , 101 S.Ct. 970 , 67 L.Ed.2d 30 (1981) ], did not involve the improper admission of evidence which, when admitted, was sufficient to sustain the verdict. In each of those cases there was simply no evidence, improperly admitted or otherwise, which was sufficient to sustain the conviction. In this case there was sufficient evidence, albeit improperly admitted, to sustain the verdict. This is a case of a new trial granted because of a trial error, and the result is controlled by our decision in Hobbs v. Commonwealth, [Ky., 655 S.W.2d 472 (1983), cert. denied, Hobbs v. Kentucky, 465 U.S. 1067 , 104 S.Ct. 1419 , 79 L.Ed.2d 745 (1984)].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[R]eversal for a trial error which incorrectly admitted incompetent evidence does not constitute a decision that the government has failed to prove its case. Rather, it is a determination that although the government did prove its case, it did so by evidence which was incompetent, and defendant is entitled to a new trial free of this procedural defect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.